Messages - 4DClaw

- Unless it's a class like ConLaw where the facts of cases will matter for the exam, do NOT waste your time reading the cases. Read the book of briefs enough so that you don't look stupid when called on in class. In classes like Torts and Contra

I briefed religiously for the first month. Then I moved to just jotting notes in the margins, and I did fine.

Always think about your final exam. Briefing is less helpful in black-letter/common-law classes like Contracts and Torts, because you don't usually need to cite cases on the exam. But it's more helpful in classes like Con Law and Property, where it's usually essential to cite Supreme Court precedents. If you do short briefs of the facts and holdings throughout the semester, you'll be very thankful when it comes time to study.

The only sure way to prepare for an exam is to do EVERY practice exam from your professor you can find. Unlike the bar exam, there is no uniform format or style that is sure to work, because you're at the mercy of professors with their own preferences. One of my professors, for example, said he would NEVER give anything above a B+ to someone who turned in an IRAC exam. OK, so you don't do IRAC with him. Another professor said he prefers IRAC, but without conclusions (IRA, I guess). So that's what you do for him.

Beyond that, it's all about knowing and understanding hell out of the material.

The last few CD's are the most helpful, once he stops talking about how wonderful the process is. But really, it's just a long way of teaching the IRAC format, which isn't that complicated. Delaney's book on exam taking was much more straightforward and helpful. Delaney spends time talking about policy arguments.

I bought it and started trying it. I got through the first 2 CDs before I just got so bored with it. The presenter is a pompous windbag, and it is more motivational speaking than anything else.

What it gives you, is a basic process for how to tackle the exams. If you don't have a process already, or haven't already figured out how to sit down and analyze a problem, LEEWS might actually be good for you. As I said, I gave up on it before sitting through it all. For me it was BS because he was just pointing out things that were already obvious to me.

Now, maybe he gets into some more useful stuff later in the CD's. I never listened that far.

It really just depends on the type of exam. If you have a classic issue-spotting exam, it can be very helpful. I worked through LEEWS before my exams, but it wasn't very helpful because my exams were much more policy-focused. If your prof strays from the traditional IRAC format, it's not going to be very helpful. Also, I think LEEWS works better for classes like Torts and property than for more theoretical classes like ConLaw.

I guess it depends on what your curve is. At my school, the curve is a solid B+. A 3.0 would place you in the bottom 1/3 or bottom 1/4. If you get all A's the second semester (something very difficult, since only 10 percent of the class gets A's), then you can pull above median. Frankly, I'm just praying for B+. I'd like higher, but I don't want to have to struggle to pull above median.

You probably aren't going to "Big Law," but just keep on trucking. Try to learn from your mistakes; don't give up!

Don't listen to the part about not going to Big law. Fine, you had a bad first semester. But you can always recover. Plenty of people do much better their second semester after having a lousy first semester, just like plenty of people see their grades fall after getting A's in their first semester. Don't set your expectations too low.